Geoff Gallop is the former premier of Western Australia

There are differences between what it means to be a serious politician in an election campaign as opposed to the three or four years that precede it. It's similar to the change that occurs when a member of parliament is elected to the Cabinet (or shadow cabinet) and cabinet solidarity as a principle of government comes into play.

Cabinet only works well when there are no leaks and when ministers accept their collective responsibility.

That means working to the big picture and explaining and defending government policy without hesitation and qualification.

It also means working with colleagues, some of whom may have been factional enemies over many years, and accepting that in our system of cabinet government, the Prime Minister, Premier or Chief Minister has the final say.

Advertisement

Some might describe this as a political challenge.

I would say it's a personal challenge with political consequences.

Indeed some politicians find it hard not to take the style and approach they have found successful in intra-party battles or community organisations for that matter, into the Cabinet itself. So too do some find it stressful to accept policies they have long-opposed, while others again find it hard to constrain their ambitions.

How, then, does all this relate to the MP facing re-election or the candidate seeking election?

In an election, the party office becomes centre stage and the party secretary or director becomes the campaign manager. They will have – or at least ought to have – worked with the Leader and his or her office and the Cabinet to prepare the basic elements of the campaign strategy, narrative and platform.

It is at this point of the political cycle that the "democratic centralist" tendencies of the parties come into their own and the "democratic discussion" phase is replaced by "the unity in action" phase (apologies to Lenin).

In this situation the last thing the campaign director wants to see is a candidate speaking against policy or speaking out in a in a controversial way.

For them it's all about the limited time and space available to advocate for the party. Time spent managing local eccentricities are time lost to the central campaign.

The same goes for MP's or candidates who speak "off the record" to the media about their doubts and uncertainties.

Sometimes they add to their reservations some "inside information" or "gossip" about this or that. Once again everyone is distracted from the main game and important advocacy time is lost.

This system of discipline can be very frustrating for those who pride themselves on their ability and their insight. They have to trust the leadership team and assume that their best interests are being served by the decisions that are being made.

In effect, they become foot soldiers in a world of marginal seats and this can be difficult to accept. To add salt to the wound it may be the case that some candidates are given more "freedom" than others to speak out or run different campaigns.

It's a testing time for all involved.

The consensus within the major parties today would be that this level of discipline is inappropriate and counter-productive in "normal times" but necessary in an election. As much as we may find this difficult to digest, it's hard to deny the political logic at work.

What we see tested in an election, then, is not just the qualities of the Leader, his or her political office and the campaign director and his or her team, but the discipline and dedication within the party overall.

Note, however, that the fact that these constraints exist shouldn't lead us to conclude that MP's and candidates don't have plenty to do in an election campaign or that their activity is unimportant - even if largely directed from the centre.

Indeed hard work on the ground always reaps rewards, even if it doesn't generate media publicity.

There will, however, always be mavericks that buck the system – and have enough local power to carry it off successfully. They are the exception to the rules that generally apply.

What, then, of the level of discipline needed in "normal times"?

That's a topic for another day.

1 comment so far

I both agree and disagree with discipline within the party. Factional enemies, in both majors, should not exist at all everyone should be working toward the betterment of the nation, state and the party. However, party political members should also be allowed, without fear of loss of endorsement, a conscience vote. If they honestly believe what is before the parliament is not right or not right for the people they represent especially in the Legislative Council and the Senate then they should have the right to vote against the majority of their party,